Roundup: Unseen consequences and consolidating power

Posted on by

In discussions around the Senate modernization report earlier this week came the question of fallout from Justin Trudeau’s decision to kick his senators out of national caucus, and how that spurred part of the reform discussion within the upper chamber (the interminable Duffy-and-company related expense issues being another of those triggers). While Paul Wells notes some of those consequences and how the decision was a good foretelling of Justin Trudeau’s management style, comments made by Senator Serge Joyal also caught my attention, particularly around the unintended consequences of the banishment.

One of the things about having senators in national caucus is that they have the benefit of being the institutional memory of parliament, because they’re there over the course of several parliaments and aren’t prone to a lot of turnover like the House of Commons is. That means they’re not always finding their feet like MPs are, or concerned about their own re-election, like MPs are, and they’ve also been there and done that with a lot of proposals that keep coming around. Kicking senators out of caucus is to forgo a lot of that knowledge and experience which is bad enough, but Joyal pointed to another problem, which is that it points to even greater centralisation of power by the leader’s office because there are no longer senators in the room to tell newbie MPs when they are or aren’t bound to follow leaders’ orders. And that’s actually a pretty salient point considering the context of Trudeau and the his own power consolidation.

By being chosen in the manner that he was – by “supporters” as opposed to caucus or even party membership, Trudeau is accountable to nobody, his selection base being so diffuse and nebulous that it could not be replicated. That allows him to argue that he has the “democratic legitimacy” to do what he wants, and demands that caucus fall into line as a result. One of his earliest actions was to kick out senators, while ostensibly about making the upper chamber “more independent,” which in a sense it will, but it also removes those voices from his caucus that can speak up about any way in which he may be inappropriately using his powers as leader. Add to that the way in which he and his team managed to push through changes to the party’s constitution that centralises policy-making into his office (under the rubric of being “more responsive” and “more modern”) and eliminated any regional power bases that could challenge his supremacy as leader, well, the picture starts getting all the more clear, that he has consolidated a very great amount of power at the expense of his party’s grassroots and caucus, more than any other party leader has in this country thus far, and that should be concerning to anyone who respects the particular accountability mechanisms inherent in the Westminster system. Joyal is right to make this point, but one suspects that few people are willing to listen, chalking his concerns up to the wounded feelings of being turfed. They’re not, and we should be paying attention to this consolidation of power.

Good reads:

  • The Conservatives are griping about the “revenue neutral” carbon pricing plan, demanding it should be revenue neutral for consumers, not the federal government.
  • Michelle Rempel and the Conservatives have started hitting at oil companies and others who support carbon pricing, because populism.
  • The Commons voted to endorse the ratification of the Paris Accords, and if anyone tells you they voted to ratify it, they’re civically illiterate.
  • There is some sniping between Parks Canada, the Arctic Research Foundation and the Nunavut Justice Department over the discovery of HMS Terror.
  • A private member’s bill about animal cruelty has been defeated, but the government promises legislation on the subject in the future.
  • The government looks to be ready to settle in the class action by female RCMP members alleging harassment and discrimination.
  • The government has committed to proactive pay equity legislation for federally regulated sectors, but it may not be tabled until 2018.
  • Minimum income plans are not necessarily the answer to poverty reduction, as they are expensive and replacing existing programmes could have consequences.
  • The “totally not a backdoor to abortion legislation” bill is up for debate, and here’s a look at why it’s so problematic with its ripple effects.
  • Here’s a look at the funding issues with First Nations schools, while the department is turning over files to the PBO on the issue they initially denied existing.
  • The government says it’s still mulling its options on what to do about the Port of Churchill.
  • Brad Trost is now taking shots at Andrew Scheer over his social conservatism.
  • Kady O’Malley previews the next batch of private members’ bills headed for the Commons.
  • My Loonie Politics column looks at how our broken leadership selection process has led to open warfare in the caucus.

Odds and ends:

Michael Sona is out of jail, where he didn’t apply for parole because it would have meant admitting to the crime he insists he didn’t commit.

Today is the one designated day of this parliament set aside specifically to debate the rules of the Commons.